On 10/8/09 12:48 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
I'm not in favour of complicating the protocol, when we can do what we
want to do with what's there. I'd really need to see significant new
use cases to drive any major change here.
+1
On the other hand, I'd see nothing wrong if someone should want to
write a draft about mailing-list considerations, and propose it as a
working group item. But I'd want to see it as a draft that we can
review, not just as a few ideas in an email message.
+1
Whoever wants to take on this project should feel free to borrow from the
article I wrote in June:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/dkim_for_discussion_lists/
J.D.
This approach still leaves problems related to ADSP policy restrictions
running afoul with any mailing-list that modifies (flattens) message
formats to ensure consistent presentation.
Since many readers of these lists are likely to prefer consistent
formatting, modified subject lines, and subscription links at the end of
the message, this is likely to cause DKIM policies to run afoul of
mailing-lists when they publish any restrictive ADSP assertion.
I have just updated the tpa draft aimed at offering a direct remedy for
this problem which does not depend upon receivers knowing which mailings
lists to trust, although we are both in the business of offering this
advice. :^)
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-otis-dkim-tpa-label-01.txt
Version 00 of this draft was poorly defined. I hope the simplified
definitions make it a bit more understandable. The off-line feedback
was appreciated.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html